The Most Misunderstood Basketball Rules

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Now, Jurassic Referee, after you have had your second helping of apple pie, would you please sit down tell us an after dinner story about the Pilgrims and the Indians, after which could you please follow up with a story about how you personally might bend some rules to account for advantage and disadvantage in calling three second lane violations and ten second free throw violations. Just exactly how do you decide to call these? Are there black areas, white areas, and gray areas, to these rules? "Do you think it's OK to pick and choose the degree to which a rule has been violated?" "You do believe in consistency, right? Or do you pick and choose what violations that you think should be called under some mystical system known only to yourself?"

Naw, I try to follow what to the best of my knowledge is standard practice. And it's almost universally accepted afaik that we should use some advantage/disadvantage on 3-seconds and 10-seconds for a FT shooter. It isn't universally accepted though to the best of my knowledge, at least in my little section of hell plus surrounding sections, that we should treat other violations like palming, traveling, etc. the same way. To say some illegal second-dribbles are OK in the back court with no pressure while other illegal second dribbles(also with no pressure in the back court) should be called makes zero sense to me.

And imo that's why what we do is an art as well as a science, with the rato of art to science varying game-to-game depending on circumstances IN any particular game.

Happy Thanksgiving to you too, Billy. It's always a great holiday when the Dallas Cowboys are getting their l'il ol' butts schmucked.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Happy Thanksgiving to you too, Billy. It's always a great holiday when the Dallas Cowboys are getting their l'il ol' butts schmucked.

Now how in the world did you know that I'm a Dallas Cowboys fan? And now you want to ruin my holiday by yanking my chain? The team of Roger Staubach, Tom Landry, and Calvin Hill? How can anybody not be a fan?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The team of Jerry Jones? How can anybody not be a fan?

Upon further review.......

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The team of Roger Staubach, Tom Landry, and Calvin Hill? How can anybody not be a fan?

Well... the fact that I live in New England, and not Texas, plays a big role for me.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

The fact that I live in New England, and not Texas, plays a big role for me.

Calvin G. Hill: B.A. History, 1969, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, New England.

I used to go watch him play when I was in high school. We lived close enough to Yale Bowl that my friends and I could walk to, and from, the game from home, avoiding all the traffic. My mother was a Yale employee and got us discounted "cheap seats" behind the goal posts for only a few bucks. Great way to spend a Saturday afternoon.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Calvin G. Hill: B.A. History, 1969, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, New England.

I used to go watch him play when I was in high school. We lived close enough to Yale Bowl that my friends and I could walk to, and from, the game from home, avoiding all the traffic. My mother was a Yale employee and got us discounted "cheap seats" behind the goal posts for only a few bucks. Great way to spend a Saturday afternoon.

Live in the past much?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Live in the past much?

Yes indeed. I love to reminisce about my youth. It was a much simpler time. Oh the wonderful memories: The Six Days War; Berlin Wall; Watergate; Bay of Pigs; Cuban missile crisis; JFK, Malcolm X, Robert F. Kennedy, and MLK Jr. assassinated; Vietnam War; Racial bigotry; Fallout shelters.

[jmwking]

I've found this fascinating enough to register after many years of lurking. Thanks, Billymac, for all the work that's obviously gone into this.

I do have a question (or three), as in your introduction you said you used this with the college game, too. I don't know if you have any intention that this list work for NCAA rules or not, but I'd at least like to ask or point out these discrepancies I noticed in case someone reads it from that angle. If I've missed something painfully obvious, please forgive me!

You stated that "the backboard has nothing to do with goaltending". The NCAA (4-34.3) says "When the entire ball is above the level of the ring during a field-goal try and contacts the backboard, it is considered to be on its downward flight. In such a case, it is goaltending when the ball is touched by a player."

Also, for a 5 second violation, you said, "the count continues even if defenders switch". The NCAA (4-13.3) states "After the start of a five-second closely guarded count, in order for a closely guarded violation to occur, there shall be continuous guarding by the same opponent."

Lastly, you said "a player saving the ball in the air can ask for and be granted a timeout even if that player is going out of bounds." NCAA (5-12.1.c) has "No timeouts shall be granted... to a player or coach when an airborne player’s momentum is carrying him/her out of bounds or into the backcourt."

Again, I'm only pointing this out as you indicated you gave this presentation to college audiences, and these points didn't seem to mesh.

Thanks.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Yes indeed. I love to reminisce about my youth. It was a much simpler time. Oh the wonderful memories: The Six Days War; Berlin Wall; Watergate; Bay of Pigs; Cuban missile crisis; JFK, Malcolm X, Robert F. Kennedy, and MLK Jr. assassinated; Vietnam War; Racial bigotry; Fallout shelters.

We didn't star the fire... It was always burning...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It isn't universally accepted though to the best of my knowledge, at least in my little section of hell plus surrounding sections, that we should treat other violations like palming, traveling, etc. the same way. That's why what we do is an art as well as a science, with the ratio of art to science varying game-to-game depending on circumstances in any particular game.

Sounds reasonable to me. A reasonable, thoughtful, kind, reflective, benevolent Jurassic Referee? Man, that tryptophan must have really kicked in?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Schmucked.

What is the meaning of this word "schmucked" that both you, and Woody, from the NFHS Basketball Forum, have been using today? Is this some type of colloquial thing? Are you two from the same neighborhood in hell.

[chseagle]

Schmuck is most often used in American English as a pejorative or insult, meaning an obnoxious, contemptible person; one who is stupid, foolish, or detestable. The word is also used by many Jewish people across Europe with similar pejorative meanings. Variants of spelling and alterations include shmuck, schmo, and shmo.

Got the definition from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmuck_(pejorative)

Originally Posted by BillyMac

What is the meaning of this word "schmucked" that both you, and Woody, from the NFHS Basketball Forum, have been using today? Is this some type of colloquial thing? Are you two from the same neighborhood in hell.

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by chseagle

Schmuck is most often used in American English as a pejorative or insult, meaning an obnoxious, contemptible person; one who is stupid, foolish, or detestable. The word is also used by many Jewish people across Europe with similar pejorative meanings. Variants of spelling and alterations include shmuck, schmo, and shmo.

Got the definition from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmuck_(pejorative)

The most dissonant aspect of JR's usage is this term is always used as a noun. Using it as a verb form is highly irregular and may be indigenous to the environs of Hell. As JR is obviously a shagitz, he can be excused his error.

PS:Timerboy, I'm surprised you didn't reflexively mention the diminutive form; schmeckel

[chseagle]

Schmuck | Define Schmuck at Dictionary.com

schmuck [shmuhk]
–noun Slang .
an obnoxious or contemptible person.

Origin:
1890–95; < Yiddish shmok (vulgar) lit., p£nis (of uncert. orig.)

Schmekel's definition is of a small organ

Originally Posted by justacoach

The most dissonant aspect of JR's usage is this term is always used as a noun. Using it as a verb form is highly irregular and may be indigenous to the environs of Hell. As JR is obviously a shagitz, he can be excused his error.

PS:Timerboy, I'm surprised you didn't reflexively mention the diminutive form; schmeckel

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by justacoach

The most dissonant aspect of JR's usage is this term is always used as a noun. Using it as a verb form is highly irregular and may be indigenous to the environs of Hell. As JR is obviously a shagitz, he can be excused his error.

PS:Timerboy, I'm surprised you didn't reflexively mention the diminutive form; schmeckel

Yiddish has 113 words synonymous with 'schmuck,' but they all have subtle shades of meaning. 'Schmuck' and 'schmekel' both can be applied with a wink and a smile to your buddy; somebody who is more annoying might be a 'putz'.